So where are we now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diamondback Six said:
Tell THIS pregnant woman who had to ruck up and defend the homestead and family that nobody needs an AR:
https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama...er-husband-and-child-in-brutal-home-invasion/

Full disclosure, I occasionally write for this site--Nick is one of our newer team members.
Click to expand...

People in Canada have used all manner of firearms, not just ARs, to defend themselves with but aside from that their trips though the legal system have been "mixed".

Trying to put it delicately that here in Canada it's a harder decision to turn to a firearm or not than it is what firearm to grab if that's the way you choose to go.
 
[/QUOTE]
Ownership of firearms per se may not be a right in Canada, but property ownership is a long established right in this country, and we as a country should all be deeply concerned when a government is planning to confiscate rightfully owned property from law abiding citizens based on nothing but lies and misinformation and for no demonstrable benefit, against the demonstrated will of the majority. That in itself is already tyranny. Based on the whim of the muppet PM, they're going to confiscate your rightful property. How long until they decide you don't need to own two cars, or any car at all? How long until they decide you don't need a house, a government issued apartment will do? If anyone thinks these things can't happen, you're dreaming. One look at the hysteria and fear mongering over climate change and the depths of corruption and arrogance of the lieberals ought to convince you.[/QUOTE]

Property rights keep coming up as an avenue forward and that would be nice.

But first off, we don't have them and second trying to get them, after you take the time to research the possibilities as I did, leads one to conclude that it is a fruitless battle mainly because it will probably require a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
scout_289 said:
Ownership of firearms per se may not be a right in Canada, but property ownership is a long established right in this country, and we as a country should all be deeply concerned when a government is planning to confiscate rightfully owned property from law abiding citizens based on nothing but lies and misinformation and for no demonstrable benefit, against the demonstrated will of the majority. That in itself is already tyranny. Based on the whim of the muppet PM, they're going to confiscate your rightful property. How long until they decide you don't need to own two cars, or any car at all? How long until they decide you don't need a house, a government issued apartment will do? If anyone thinks these things can't happen, you're dreaming. One look at the hysteria and fear mongering over climate change and the depths of corruption and arrogance of the lieberals ought to convince you.
Click to expand...

QUOTE]

property rights? since when. property rights are not covered by our charter in a nut shell.
 
jw8 said:
QUOTE]

property rights? since when. property rights are not covered by our charter in a nut shell.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I goofed in quoting the poster and my answer is in the last two lines saying basically same as you.
 
I don't want to poop on anyone's party, but if JT came with a pipeline in one hand and no buyback/no new gun law/scrapping C-71 in the other, pretty much all of alberta would choose the pipeline. Of course a few "no comprise" would choose neither.

As for western alienation, what exactly can JT do about it? Think about it for a second, what would make you vote liberal in the next election? For most people in Alberta/SK, the answer is simple: nothing. God could come down from heaven to tell you to vote liberal and you would change religion. Even if JT builds a golden pipeline and give everyone in the west a BJ, he will still not win a single riding in the 2021 election. So why bother? Electorally speaking, why lose 100 votes to the greens and the dippers on the left to gain (maybe)1 on the right? That would equal a net loss of ridings.

Actually, JT's only chance at taking a few seats in the west is the emergence of an actual federal wexit party. That party would take vote from the PCC, and the PCC only, so liberal candidates would stand a chance to get through, a bit like how Notley got through when the wildrose and the Alberta conservatives divided the votes.

On the other hand, if the PCC made some modifications to its platform to get into 2019, it might lose a few votes in AB and SK, which would be inconsequential riding-wise, but win a lot more in the urban and suburbians areas int the GTA. Those changes would be:
1-Become pro-choice. And I'm not talking about some BS position like "we're not gonna talk about it" and then try every crap move in the book (like, for example, taking away funding from pro-choice organisation in thrid-world countries). I'm talking about taking an official pro-choice position in the part status;
2-Same thing about ### marriage;
3-Have an actual position on climate change. Nobody outside of the oil patch accept that global warming is a made-up story to frighten children. Denying scientific consensus is electorally destructive, at least in Canada.

Doing that wouldn't mean an easy landslide victory in 2021, but it would be the first step on a path to victory. Some urban and suburban ridings were close calls, and in those ridings, having social positions that pre-date the internet is about as destructive as spraying the candidate with voter-deterrent bodyspray. Of course, the heavily english-speaking ridings of Montreal and the pot-smoking brigade of Vancouver will keep voting liberal (or ndp/green), there's nothing to do about that. But the goal is the suburbian areas around those metropolitan areas.
 
VinnyQC said:
3-Have an actual position on climate change. Nobody outside of the oil patch accept that global warming is a made-up story to frighten children. Denying scientific consensus is electorally destructive, at least in Canada.
Click to expand...

Global warming is not a made up story. What made up about it is that it is mostly due to a human activity. Not the sun activity, not the volcanoes, not the methane from the ice and the bottom of the ocean.

But lets play along. 75% of manmade CO2 is generated by 100 global companies. Want to reduce their CO2? Make them build carbon capture plants. No? No taxes to collect and redistribute? how sad.

If they truly wanted to reduce Canadian CO2 emission they just need to stop the immigration and by 2050 Canada will cut emission in half via population reduction.

What left want us to do is to continue to emit carbon, feel guilty about it and pay for it. Similar to how Catholic church made you feel guilty about living your life and pay for your sins to get to heaven.
 
For those that were not shooting ARs back in the early 90s - they tried to prohibit them back then to.
The DCRA came out and said they had thousands of target shooters using them right in Ottawa. An exaggeration - it was only a small group of us out there. But nobody checked. They bumped it down to restricted.

If the DCRA can do this again and this time actually prove there are thousands - that may help. Maybe the Libs can just remove the collector reason for owning one and only allow target shooting. Which is 99% of us anyways.

However the DCRA and their sub orgs like the ORA have done a very poor job of growing the sport the last few years. They changed their guest policy - for civilians you have to be a member to compete. It pretty much shut down things overnight in Ottawa since many were from out of town and couldn’t justify joining a club they couldn’t use. Without AR target shooters we may eventually lose our ability to justify owning them. I really hope I am wrong, but i am quite worried we are in a pickle now.
 
scout_289 said:
The courts are there in my recipe (post 173) but only as a last resort, not the pointy end of the spear because they are slow, expensive and the outcome is uncertain.
Click to expand...

I read just read your post. Thoughtful, but that's a second half plan when we're at the two minute warning. Elections have consequences and we lost, so we need the courts to protect our rights.

I think the odds of getting an injunction preventing seizure are low. The court challenges have to start the day the legislation passes so the Liberals can't claim victory on the issue.

While I agree a court case could *potentially* become expensive, the initial filings and registration of litigants (if it's class action) will have symbolic value. If we're really acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, though, I think raising a few million dollars should be easy, say 100$ per owner? Small money for people worried about losing thousands of dollars worth of firearms.
 
Last edited:
jw8 said:
QUOTE]

property rights? since when. property rights are not covered by our charter in a nut shell.
Click to expand...

I've seen this claim (no property rights in Canada) before. It is a misinterpretation if not an outright misunderstanding of the law, usually promoted by people who were subject to land expropriation. Even that was subject to due process.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.
 
lintocs said:
The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.
Click to expand...

The government can and it does. All the have to do is to pass the legislation.

In our particular case they will use civil forfeiture. As all guns are already illegal to posses and you are given the exemption through PAL and Reg.cert.

As soon as you start breaking the law, all you property will become connected to illegal activity. They can come and take anything they want. You car, your TV, your house, your watches, phones, whatever they want.
 
BlackVoid said:
The government can and it does. All the have to do is to pass the legislation.

In our particular case they will use civil forfeiture. As all guns are already illegal to posses and you are given the exemption through PAL and Reg.cert.

As soon as you start breaking the law, all you property will become connected to illegal activity. They can come and take anything they want. You car, your TV, your house, your watches, phones, whatever they want.
Click to expand...

https://www.canadianjusticereviewboard.ca/reports-papers/civil-forfeiture-in-canada

The civil forfeiture laws are provincial, not federal, and you would still get your day in court.

Further, the property would have to be implicated in the commission of or as the profits of a crime. I think creating the crime after the fact probably wouldn't fly.

The government isn't offering to buy these guns for no reason. There's also a reason previous governments didn't try to seize prohibited firearms. It isn't easy.
 
Last edited:
https://youtu.be/IbA6VjLTucc

Another recent news story framing gun owners. How is it possible they can demonize us at every turn but yet still turn around and call it unbiased reporting. That’s one thing Trump got right, “Fake News” is prevalent in today’s society.
 
lintocs said:
I've seen this claim (no property rights in Canada) before. It is a misinterpretation if not an outright misunderstanding of the law, usually promoted by people who were subject to land expropriation. Even that was subject to due process.

The Canadian Bill of Rights guarantees the right to enjoyment of property. Provincial laws and British common and French civil law cover the right to personal property. The government can't just decide to take your stuff. That's why we have to get them in to court.
Click to expand...

If your premise is true then why hasn't our community and their orgs as well as Provincial governments used this argument successfully in the past? So many legal minds missing something so obvious for so long?
 
Sylvertiger said:
https://youtu.be/IbA6VjLTucc

Another recent news story framing gun owners. How is it possible they can demonize us at every turn but yet still turn around and call it unbiased reporting. That’s one thing Trump got right, “Fake News” is prevalent in today’s society.
Click to expand...


We don't have an effective, real time mechanism to challenge them. See point 1a of my seven point plan.

Ironheart has been doing a fantastic job of finding and posting anti gun stories - first step in the plan. Now all we need is a country wide web to do the same and a mechanism to fire back before the story can grow legs.
 
There has never been a firearms seizure before. It will be *very* difficult to do so within our legal system, but the legislative attempts must be challenged in the courts.
 
lintocs said:
There has never been a firearms seizure before. It will be *very* difficult to do so within our legal system, but the legislative attempts must be challenged in the courts.
Click to expand...

what do you mean by "there has never been a firearms seizure before"?
I seem to recall the Spaz-12 shotguns were seized from their owners.
 
lintocs said:
I read just read your post. Thoughtful, but that's a second half plan when we're at the two minute warning. Elections have consequences and we lost, so we need the courts to protect our rights.

I think the odds of getting an injunction preventing seizure are low. The court challenges have to start the day the legislation passes so the Liberals can't claim victory on the issue.

While I agree a court case could *potentially* become expensive, the initial filings and registration of litigants (if it's class action) will have symbolic value. If we're really acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of gun owners, though, I think raising a few million dollars should be easy, say 100$ per owner? Small money for people worried about losing thousands of dollars worth of firearms.
Click to expand...

First thank you for taking the time to read my post. There are people interested in all or parts of it but we can't seem to get the traction.

I agree that under specific conditions the courts are appropriate and maybe this is one of the times? I would certainly pitch in $$$ if I saw the roll out of a personal property rights class action that my lawyer thought we had a chance of winning.

The attraction of that approach that I saw in my research is that maybe we could get other groups to join in with us? There's much material to read on attempts to deal with expropriation and mineral rights - won't be hard to find those who are aggrieved in that bunch.

It's only the two minute warning because gun owners refused to recognize the obvious and push back by pulling together when there was time available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom